Recent Profile Visitors

Politically speaking though, the people that live there often don't actually agree with that attitude. Same goes for Seattle. People who live in these places think local corporations should be specifically taxed to whatever extent is necessary to pay for as much subsidized housing as is necessary to house everyone.
Or, apparently, if you can't afford to live in SF, you can always just go/stay there anyway, and be homeless.

From a point of view of need, a lot of these people need detox, in some cases medically-monitored. After that, they need some significant substance use counseling, and some need psychiatric treatment in addition to that. Jail doesn't provide great treatment typically, but it does at least ensure detox will occur. And frankly, it's probably easier to justifiably jail a lot of these people than it is to convince a judge to court-order them into treatment. Further, the evidence of effectiveness of forced substance use treatment is that it is extremely ineffective.
Anyway, after the detox, and concurrent with the substance use counseling, mental health counseling, psychiatric treatment, et al., they need decent, permanent housing provided to them, regular monitoring, a gainful job offered to them, and probably a sober romantic partner, frankly. Realistically all those things need to be magically placed in their lap to really minimize the likelihood of relapse. If you jail people and they sober up in jail and you just release them back to the streets without the array of basic needs and services provided on a silver platter, and instead say "now it's time for you to take responsibility for yourself," wagging your finger at them isn't going to do anything, and their likelihood of relapse/recidivism is extremely high.

The lying/spin about that case never stops.
First of all, that case had nothing to do with corporations. It concerned only public sector employment.
Second, the case had absolutely nothing to do with "workers' right to organize and collectively bargain."
Third, the "small fee" workers is made to sound like some tiny little extra amount, when it is almost always equivalent to the financial core dues all represented employees pay/paid.
Fourth, federal law only requires unions to provide services to non-members if unions choose to be exclusive representatives over those non-members. Unions actively choose the conditions that result in them being required to provide services to non-members.
Fifth, it doesn't and hasn't "bankrupted labor unions." Roughly half of the states were already Right To Work before this case, and unions still operated in those states despite that Right To Work condition, and chose (and still do) to be exclusive representatives.

Union households voted for Trump in greater numbers/proportions than for any other Republican candidate since Reagan ('84). This won him the midwest states and thus the election. He did it by being the more believably anti-free-trade candidate of the two. If union household votes were a difference-maker in 2016, Dems are going to think it could be the difference-maker in 2020 and so they need to win some of those votes back.
Biden should have little problem gaining support from big national labor bosses, as they historically tend to favor establishment Dems over progressive idealists (e.g. they favored Hillary over Sanders).
Biden's problem is if mid-west union households wouldn't vote for Hillary over Trump in 2016 because she was seen as an establishment moderate globalist, why would they vote for Biden, who is also an establishment moderate globalist, over Trump in 2020?

I think some CEOs should start to do this, to negotiate for a mix of cash compensation as well as equity compensation, and then after the compensation deal is reached and it's the CEO's payday, turn around and evenly distribute the cash compensation piece, not only as a gesture of goodwill, but as a simultaneous powerful reminder that these pay packages, as gigantic as they seem (and are) to the average joe, don't actually go very far relative to the mind-boggling enormity of the mega-corporation's total employees.
In this case, if Easterbrook would do this, he would be able to say, look, I took a voluntary 50% pay cut just to give you all more money. And here is what it calculates out to. Six dollars.

If you include franchise employees, it has 1.7 to 1.9 million.
He should divide up all his non-stock compensation (~$10 million) and give each employee $6.00. Or a gift card good for a Big Mac meal. That'll lift them out of poverty.
Yeah, anarchy makes everyone better off.

You might want to try reading for a second before posting things.
This is William Byrd, English composer from the Renaissance period:
Your story is about the execution of John King. He was one of the people who killed James Byrd Jr.

Republicans are poor, generally. The poorest states have Republican legislatures. Rural areas are overwhelmingly Republican-voting as well as overwhelmingly poor.
These controversies about wealthy residents opposing affordable housing and homeless shelters typically come up in liberal urban areas, i.e. areas which overwhelmingly vote Democrat. In this example, it's San Francisco. Did you not read the OP? Whimpering "Republicans hate the poor" in an thread that's about San Francisco doesn't make much sense.

It's not a "fatal" flaw, just a walking contradiction. Cognitive dissonance. What people say they support philosophically/in theory/in policy and what they actually decide and want in their private lives are often at odds. If both-siderism makes you feel better, remember there are also infinite examples of "good Christian" hypocrisy we can point to among the religious Republican crowd. So don't be so butt-hurt.
The urban progressive equality advocacy is one area where a painful level of cognitive dissonance is exposed, because we've seen decades of urban planning and zoning and urban development influenced by wealthy urbanites who already live there that are determined to keep the poor concentrated, segregated from them, and comfortably as far away from their affluent little habitats as possible. Privately, affluent people have every rational incentive to want it this way, even while publicly they claim to have a very different worldview concerning social justice.

This story reveals the walking contradiction that is the affluent, highly educated, urban progressive. The equality and social justice virtues are purely in theory, but they don't actually want it in their backyard. In theory they fight for equality and social justice, but in practice they fight like hell to preserve the opposite for their neighborhood. Liberal tenured social science professors don't want homeless shelters or dense affordable housing units in their ritzy neighborhoods. Liberal Democrat politicians don't want homeless shelters or dense affordable housing units in their ritzy neighborhoods. Liberal attorneys don't want homeless shelters or dense affordable housing units in their affluent neighborhoods.
Equality and social and economic justice for all! So long as someone else does all the work and keeps all that mess far, far away from me and my family.